Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Rooplata Sinha Rooplata Sinha

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) against the impugned award dated 4-8-2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.65/2021, by which while granting the application for compensation to the claimant, the liability to pay compensation of ₹ 4,70,352/-

has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would submit that permit of the offending passenger carrying vehicle stood expired on 17-1-2019 and the accident took place on 31-1-2019 at 7.30 a.m., whereas the amount for renewal of permit was deposited on 31-1-2019 at 4.30 p.m. and thereafter, the permit was renewed from 1-2-2019 to 1-5-2019, therefore, admittedly, on the date of accident, there was no valid permit of the offending vehicle and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others (2018) 7 SCC 558 be invoked and the appeal be allowed in part.

Mr. Arvind Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant/respondent No.1 herein as also Mr. Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of owner and driver, both, of the offending vehicle/respondents No.2 & 3 herein, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record meticulously.

Admittedly, as per the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph 19 of the impugned award, it remains undisputed that permit of the offending vehicle i.e. the passenger carrying vehicle was operative from 18-10-2018 to 17-1-2019, whereas the accident occurred on 31-1-2019 at 7.30 a.m. and on that day, permit was not operative and owner of the vehicle Rakesh Parakh of M.S. Bachpan Mahaveer Shiksha Samiti got it renewed by depositing the amount on 31-1-2019 in the evening at 4.30 p.m. by which the permit of the vehicle was renewed from 1-2-2019 to 1-5-2019. As such, on the date of accident, the offending vehicle did not have the valid permit. However, in order to fasten liability on the Insurance Company, the Claims Tribunal has placed reliance on Section 66(3) (i) of the Act of 1988 which provides that the provisions of permit in regard to Section 66(1) shall not apply to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms. However, in the present case, this provision would not be applicable in light of the fact that as per Ex.D-3 – Policy Schedule cum Certificate of Insurance, the vehicle in question is the passenger carrying vehicle and therefore Section 66(3)(i) of the Act of 1988 would not apply. As such, it is held that the offending vehicle did not have the valid permit on the date of accident. Consequently, the Insurance Company is liable to firstly pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and thereafter, recover the same from the owner and the driver as held by the Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh (supra) (see paragraph 24) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that if at the time of accident, the vehicle did not have the permit, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the claimant first and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (also see National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733).

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above without there being any order as to costs.